Keith Olberman's comments were Spot On (and include quote from Murrow)

And I still await an explanation that satisfactorily clears up the little problem of the 500 tons (as in 1,000,000 pounds) of yellow-cake uranium Saddam was known to possess. Why was he in Niger seeking more when he had enough to make dozen of nuclear bombs?--when the problem wasn't uranium, but the capacity to turn that uranium into something "useful." And even if Saddam was nuts enough to try and procure more of the stuff that he couldn't use, why would this represent a threat to the US or its allies? "Well, perhaps fifty years form now, Saddam--uh, that is his grandsons--might be capable of turning the 500 lbs of yello-cake into bombs, so then he'd need more. That is why it was imperative to invade Iraq when we did, to prevent this possiblity from occurring 50 years from now." Of course, between 2002 and 2052, Iraq might have become a democratic nation (again) and so we would not have any longer faced a potential threat from them (unless we decided [again] to overthrow its nascent democracy).

So, there is no rational reason to make a seeking of more yellow-cake a center-piece of a rationale for an invasion. Especially when there is no proof such an effort was made (though again, even if it was--who cares?). The oft cited Butler Report, which is hugely critical of most aspects of the reasons used to justify the war, does suggest there was enough data to make the yellow-cake asserion believable. Of course, it does not give a single one of those reasons and so we are asked to accept on faith its premise. I have heard enough of these "accept on faith" (or on lies) justifications and refuse to do so. "Blair wouldn't lie to us." "Bush wouldn't lie to us." The infernal lie which "lies" at the heart of both of these statements has been proven too often.

Cheerio!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

AND . . .

You say:

Ya see,

you must have a sovereign nation to assert, institutionalize, and defend "inalienable rights".

[This view] forgets that what is noble about America is not that Americans are somehow morally better than anyone else. But that it is a country with a democratic system that helps expose the constancy of human evil, and minimise its power through the rule of law, democratic accountability and constitutional checks.

That system was devised by men who assumed the worst of people, not the best, who expected Americans not to be better than any other people, but the same. It was the wisdom of the system that would save America, not the moral superiority of its people.

What is so tragic about this presidency is that it has simultaneously proclaimed American goodness while dismantling the constitutional protections and laws that guard against American evil. The good intention has overwhelmed the fact of human fallibility. But reality — human reality — eventually intrudes. Denial breaks down. The physical evidence of torture, of murder, of atrocity, slowly overwhelms the will to disbelieve in it.

I am sorry, Mr President. This is America. And you have helped make it so.

By the design of the Founders, most American political issues are driven by the vicissitudes of political realities, shaped by practicalities and resolved by horse-trading compromises among competing factions.  But not all political questions were to be subject to that process.  Some were intended to be immunized from those influences.  Those were called "principles," or "rights," or "guarantees" -- and what distinguishes them from garden-variety political disputes is precisely that they were intended to be both absolute and adhered to regardless of . . . "the practical considerations policymakers must contend with."

We don't have to guess what those principles are.  The Founders created documents -- principally the Constitution -- which had as their purpose enumerating the principles that were to be immunized from such "practical considerations."  All one has to do in order to understand their supreme status is to understand the core principle of Constitutional guarantees:  no acts of Government can conflict with these principles or violate them for any reason.  And all one has to do to appreciate their absolute, unyielding essence is to read how they're written:  The President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  "[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."  "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."  Even policies which enjoy majoritarian support and ample "practical" justification will be invalid -- nullified -- if they violate those guarantees.

Consider how Thomas Paine described the rule of law and the presidential obligation to obey the law and be subject to it.  Does this sound like it was supposed to be waived whenever "the practical considerations policymakers must contend with" made it convenient to do so?

“But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.  For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

Those principles are absolute and unyielding by their nature.  Garden-variety political questions -- what should be the highest tax rate?  what kind of health care policy should the government adopt? to what extent should the government regulate private industry? -- are ones intended to be driven by "the practical considerations policymakers must contend with."  But questions about our basic liberties and core premises of our government -- presidential adherence to the law, providing due process before sticking people in cages, spying on Americans only with probable cause search warrants, treating all citizens including high political officials equally under the law -- are supposed to be immune from such "practical" and ephemeral influences.  Those principles, by definition, prevail in undiluted form regardless of public opinion and regardless of the "practical" needs of political officials.  That should not be controversial; that is the central republican premise for how our political system was designed.

But the mentality reflected by [the Beltway's] view -- there are no "principles"; everything must give way to "practical considerations" of Washington officials -- is precisely what has become so rampant and is what accounts for most of the lawlessness and corruption in our political class.  Instead of "the President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," we have: "Presidents should try to obey the law except when they decree there are good reasons to violate it."  Instead of "in America the law is king," we have: "we can only apply the law when it won't undermine bipartisanship."  Instead of "treaties shall be the Supreme Law of the Land," we have:  "we can't have torture prosecutions because they'll distract from health care."  To "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" and "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," we have added:  "unless there are Terrorists who want to harm us, in which case we spy without warrants and imprison people for life without charges."

The standard Beltway mindset doesn't recognize principles or the validity of Constitutional guarantees.  People who believe in those things -- who take them seriously and think they should be applied independent of "practicalities" -- are naive extremists and ideologues.  But just read what those Constitutional provisions say:  it's not possible to believe in them without being what Joe Klein derisively called a "civil liberties extremist."  Constitutional guarantees and principles are, by their nature, extremist and absolute.

Relatedly, the Beltway mindset also doesn't recognize political controversies where only one side -- not two -- is right or is speaking factually.  There are many political disputes where there are two or more reasonable sides and where solutions can legitimately be shaped by political compromise and "practical considerations" -- by putting Arlen Specter and Susan Collins in a room with Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe and arbitrarily dividing everything in the middle in order to attract bipartisan and "centrist" support.  But not all political questions are supposed to be resolved by that sort of randomly compromising horse-trading.  Yet the Washington mindset doesn't recognize any other type of political question; they think that all political matters, including ones grounded in Constitutional guarantees and the rule of law, must be subjected to that process of dilution.

I tend to focus on political issues involving Constitutional principles ("the President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed") that weren't intended to be diluted by such concerns, and on issues were there is only one, not two, reasonable sides ("when the law says that eavesdropping on Americans without warrants is a felony and the President gets caught doing exactly that, he has committed crimes and should be treated like all other citizens who commit crimes" -- "torture is both wrong and illegal" -- "war crimes shouldn't be covered-up or shielded from judicial review with secrecy claims").  Waiving Constitutional guarantees in the name of "practical considerations" is an extreme and damaging vice, as is pretending that factually false claims are entitled to respect in order to appear more reasonable, thoughtful and balanced or to adhere to senseless, soul-draining journalistic conventions.  

[....]

I'm fully aware of what the Washington conventions are that lead to rampant lawlessness and corruption, and have become aware of media conventions that enable such behavior.  I don't criticize standard Washington behavior because -- as [one of Greenwald's critics] put it -- I'm "oblivious" to those conventions.  It's that I think those conventions are radically flawed and twisted and ought to be smashed.

Dispensing with core Constitutional principles in the name of "practical considerations" -- and treating ludicrous, bad faith claims with respect -- creates a facade of reasonableness.  But there's nothing reasonable about it.  It's intellectually barren and, worse, is the prime enabler for why our political leaders stray so far and so frequently from those principles.  It's why they break the law with impunity and know they can.  The Bill of Rights and the rule of law aren't like modifications to the tax code or compromises over the stimulus package.  They're in a fundamentally different category.  The failure to recognize that category is a defining attribute of the Beltway sickness and is a prime reason why Washington so frequently degrades and destroys whatever it touches. [emphases in the original]

AND . . .

Allow me to regurgitate--YES I do still insist, gaff or no, that we were NOT attacked by Iraq and thus it was NOT an act of self defense but a naked act of aggression (the fact that this "nudity" was directed at a less than savory character is irrelevant). Your inability to see this remains a major repititive gaff on your part--up there with the refusal to even acknowledge the existance of Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions (and the Supreme Court decision that declared they applied to the so-called "enemy combatants"--not to mention that even Bush himself grudgingly admitted that they applied, long after serially violating their protections [which by definition makes him a war criminal]) and your insistence that the president, by the act of declaring war, removes himself from any limitations of Law*. Us turning our attention from al-Qaeda and Afghanistan to attack Iraq made as much sense as if a few weeks after landing on the beaches of Normandy, we decided to invade Russia, pulling all but token forces from the Pacific theater and Western Europe. We had the leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban stripped defenseless and all that had to be done was act rationally and close the net. But no, Iraq beckoned, and so that leadership escaped. We let them escape--the leadership that actually WAS responsible for the attacks of 9/11. BUT, on the bright side, we knocked out Saddam . . . and killed 100,000 civilians, wounded countless others, got close to 5,000 American killed, 30,000 wounded physically, and tens of thousand wounded psychologically, displaced millions, spent a trillion plus dollars, weakened our military, damaged our reputations and provided recruiting tools for "Islamofacism." Yup. It was a bargain. [. . . but except for THAT Mrs. Kennedy, what did you think of the ride through Dallas?]

*There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." -- John Adams, Journal, 1772.

*A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.-- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in the Hamdi decision, referring directly to the Bush Administration's conduct in the so-called "War on Terror"

* The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, [even] in extraordinary times.-- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, ruling in Boumediene v. Bush against Bush/Cheney's assertion that they can hold whoever they wish, for as long as they wish, because "they" are the president.

*[L]et no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."--Thomas Jefferson

*In these troubled times we must allow our chief executive to act free of any restraint--free from the constraining influence of Constitution, law, treaty obligation, or meddling from Congress or the Courts--in order that our nation shall be protected whenever war looms. Oh yes, and the president should be the sole authority at declaring when war so looms.--sra-7

AND . . .

there are still other reasons to suggest the invasion of Iraq was folly. But before I do, I shall bring forth one of Bush's favorite words. The invasion was profoundly (no, not that one—it may not have been in his vocabulary), and absolutely an EVIL. When you read the recollections of those who were there in the discussions about invading Iraq, many different things are mentioned—most simply flawed rationalizations to embrace this Bush/Cheney lust for invading Iraq. One thing you never hear about is the horrible human costs the would result from these actions. These persons, wrapped in their cocoons of astounding levels of arrogance, looked upon the map of Iraq and saw only power to be gained. The people there who would be in the way of our tanks and our bombs were merely dramatic props to use as one further rationalization for war. “We will bring them food, and medicine, and freedom” Bush once said (it's from memory, so I may have it slightly wrong)--but every suggestion that it wouldn't be so easy to bring them such freedom, and that the risks in trying were huge, and the costs just as enormous, were rebuffed without any meaningful consideration. A real concern for the welfare of those peoples would have taken into consideration these risks and costs—but they were tossed aside with nary a look, because the fate of the Iraqi people were of absolutely no concern to these men. We see ample evidence of this from their pre-war machinations, and just as clearly from their post-invasion actions (or rather, lack of same).* This failure was nothing less than monstrous. Which is not to say I consider Bush, et al, to BE monsters, only that they acted monstrously. Their orgasmic power grab not only took no account of the Iraqis themselves, but also failed to take into account the lives of our military men and women. All were mere pawns in their grand scheme—less than pawns, really. I used to be an avid chess player, and I did not throw them away without a meaningful plan in my head to make their sacrifice bring me dividends for I did not consider them worthless or unimportant. Often, it was protecting these pawns—at the expense of my opponents—that resulted in victory for me (or inadvertent failure that resulted in my defeat). But to these egotists who made up the executive branch, these pawns were less than nothing—-“pawns" who, unlike the chessic variety, were living things, beings who each possessed distinct personalities, beings with loved ones and souls.* Their immoral deliberations on an Iraq invasion must have sounded ever so much like the justifications General Buck Turgidson, in Dr. Strangelove, offered for blowing Soviet Russia to Kingdom Come. Turgidson (George C. Scott) suggested that since they had accidentally initiated an attack against Russia, instead of trying to pull them back, they should go ahead as follow through with it as they had the Rooskies “with their pants down.” It was suggested by others that Russia could still unleash an attack on the USA, to which Turg replied cheerily, “Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks” [alas, much of the wonderfully, over-the-top banter of the war-mongering faction in this film is undoubtedly only too accurate in the justifications real-life leaders use to justify the slaughter of human beings]. In the Rumsfeld/Cheney discourse, it must have only been “a few thousand American”--depending upon the breaks--that were offered as the shrugged off consequence of invasion. No doubt the Iraqis weren't even shrugged off. They weren't considered at all.

Nor were the Afghans. By switching focus from there to Iraq, we were going to condemn the citizens of Afghanistan to more peril, allowing the problems with their economy, their infrastructure, with corruption, and the lurking danger of the Taliban to fester and worsen. With our focus elsewhere (Iraq) we had denied the leadership of al Qaida and the Taliban their due. And we removed the chance of helping to turn the country into some semblance of a independent country who would be an ally of the world's efforts to contain terrorism. Bush took his eye off the ball--for six years--while he gazed rapaciously at Iraq, allowing yet another descent into chaos as a result of short-sighted American vision (the other occurring after our assistance to the Afghans had pushed Russia out of their country and then completely deserted them). Now, Obama is faced with numerous bad choices regarding Afghanistan—made bad by the stupidity of the former administration.

But the gift of a more unstable world that Bush/Cheney bestowed in their irrational invasion of Iraq just keeps on giving. Iran is now a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Why would they wish to do this? Hmm. Lets see. Perhaps they feel a wee bit threatened by the USA ? (This “threat” being, from your perspective, an actual plus—i.e., the invasion of Iraq would make “them” fear us, and this fear would keep “them” in line. So, how's it working for Iran?). We deposed their democratically elected president in the early 1950s, based on incredible arrogance and myopia (no, Bush doesn't have a monopoly on these “attributes”). We then propped up a dictator who was a bit nuts, and more than a little brutal, and for some reason, Iran didn't take this so kindly. (Strange. I mean, we ARE the United States of America, so can't they see that this was in their best interests?) Then, when the despot Saddam attacked Iran without rational pretext, save the accretion of power (hmm, that sounds familiar), who came to help Iran fight off the brutal aggressors? Why, the US of A of course. Oops. Sorry. I got that wrong. Reagan and Rumsfeld decided that helping Saddam was the right idea in its monstrous war—help that would eventually lend itself to Saddam's effort to commit genocide on his own people at the end of that war. Then, 2 decades later, we invade Iraq, Iran's neighbor, without a valid pretext. Why should that make Iran feel vulnerable (comments like “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran from one of our presidential candidates not-with-standing)? So, feeling threatened rightly or wrongly, not understanding that since we are THE United States of America we obviously would never break international law and attack a country that wasn't an imminent threat, they decide to invest in a nuclear program. And if bombs actually be their goal, then these would act as a huge deterrent to US thoughts of attacking them. There is no rational doubt about the fact that the Iraq War/debacle has contributed to the impasse with Iran. Just one of the many unintended consequences of the Iraq war—consequences that were given no consideration by the darlings of the Bush Administration, though there were many experts who warned that Iran would become more powerful as a result of an invasion. Obviously, these so called “experts” were clueless losers who were intent on spoiling all of Bush/Cheney's fun.

Oh well, enough for know. Cheerio.


*Surely I do not need to recount the horrific mismanagement of our post-invasion actions? To mention a few--refusing to declare martial law (according to international law, an invading country MUST provide security for the country it has invaded), allowing the country to descend into chaos, the allowing the cultural treasures of Iraq (and the world) to be stolen, and crime in general to run rampant, the dismissing of the entire army of Iraq which left thousands of armed angry young men for some mischief to attach themselves to, refusing to listen to most Iraqi intelligentsia, etc., etc., etc.

**And to your oft repeated mantra that I just don't get it, that there ARE times when in spite of the costs it is necessary to use force--I reluctantly agree. There are indeed times when the sweep of history and intolerable threat make such intervention necessary. Gandhi thought that even the Nazi threat could be countered with his Satyagraha, though he acknowledged there would be much suffering to endure before Naziism would be defeated. I think he was wrong, that Hitler and his chief henchmen were propelled by dark forces which could never have been appeased, not even with the subjugation of the entire world. That is a most extreme example, of course, but the invasion of Afghanistan is an instance where a rational case could be made for such an intervention--The ruling entity had facilitated an attack on the US, was itself a monstrous cancer which was sucking the life's blood from its people, and the war making was sanctioned by the UN. In Iraq's case, only the 2nd of these three justifications were present.


Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

AND--

another issue never really addressed by you, though I had brought it up numerous times, involves the rationale for torture. Two aspects of this argument in particular were essentially ignored by you.

1) The US was in fact engaged in a policy of torturing terrorist suspects (most of whom were implicitly declared to be guilty of no such thing)--several of these individuals dying as a result--in direct violation of several treaties, statutes, and the Constitution itself.

2) That engaging in these activities represents a real danger to our own country, e.g., that it will encourage other nations to torture our soldiers in future conflicts, and even more importantly, it represents a huge slip down the slippery slope of deteriorating principle and behavior.

Concerning the first, you have been in consistent denial, stating over and over that the "techniques" we used to illicit information did not rise to the level of torture. The fact that I quoted passages from several sources which clearly demonstrated that our actions did indeed rise to level of torture, you generally ignored, or attempted to say that, in the case of the quotes I used from the Geneva Conventions, that they were inapplicable--that they did not cover "enemy combatants." My demonstration that most scholars agree that Geneva does in fact apply, and more specifically, that the provisions of Common Article III unambiguously apply--were shrugged off. The fact that our own Supreme Court ruled they apply, the fact that even George W. Bush belatedly agreed that they apply was never once acknowledged by you. Also unacknowledged was my attempt to personalize the "enhanced interrogation" practices we employed. I asked how you would feel if you, your wife, or one of your children had been swept up in the too wide dragnet of terrorist investigations and subjected to these "discomforts" as you once characterized them--discomforts that resulted in at least 100 deaths, I might add. There have, amazingly enough, been a few people who have put their bodies where there mouths were and allowed themselves to be subjected to these "discomforts." The result? As you would expect, in every instance, those who underwent the waterboarding technique have come away recognizing that the technique was indeed torturous—even though as it was applied to them, it was not under as dire conditions. Take for instance the blowhard, Mancow. He had been saying much the same things as you have, that it wasn't really torture, I mean, having some water poured on your face—how bad could that be? Well, he was challenged to submit to such treatment, and he readily agreed. He thought he would last a minute or so before he would give the signal to cease the experiment. He lasted less than 2 seconds, and came away from it sheepishly admitting that he was totally wrong, that waterboading, just one of a spectrum of techniques we employed which qualify as torture under US and international law, was definitely torture. Perhaps because of this and other examples, Hannity—another bloviating swill-meister—has not made good on his promise to subject himself to the treatment. So, how do you think you'd stand up to the WB? or to being thrown up against a stone wall, or doused with water and kept in a 50 degree cell for hours on end? or beaten until your legs were pulp? or forced into a coffin-like box with creepy-crawlies? or told that your wife and children would be raped? And how would a child of yours stand up to these things? And how would you feel about them being subjected to such treatment, especially if they died as a result? “Oh--It's tragic of course, but these things happen. The soldiers/CIA operatives who beat my child to death were only acting professionally, in accordance to the wishes of the president, to protect America from terrorism. I am certain my child was only too happy to sacrifice him(her)self to this vital cause. God Bless America and John Yoo.” Somehow, I don't think this is what you'd say, but somehow, it's perfectly okay for Americans to subject others to this treatment—others just as innocent of terrorism as is your children.

As to the second unadressed issue noted above, I have quoted several times from our own military who decry this crazed policy, both because of the increased danger it represents to our own military personnel vis-a-vis being subjected to torture in future conflicts, and because of what the removal of the here-to-fore strict prohibitions on torture would likely mean toward propelling many way down the slope of ever escalating abuse. To bolster the slippery-slope argument, I wrote at some length about 2 experiments—the Milgram “Obedience to Authority” experiment (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment, and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)—and how they demonstrated how precarious our hold is on civilization. Your response? We still await same.

Cheerio!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

AND--

another issue never really addressed by you, though I had brought it up numerous times, involves the rationale for torture. Two aspects of this argument in particular were essentially ignored by you.

1) The US was in fact engaged in a policy of torturing terrorist suspects (most of whom were implicitly declared to be guilty of no such thing)--several of these individuals dying as a result--in direct violation of several treaties, statutes, and the Constitution itself.

2) That engaging in these activities represents a real danger to our own country, e.g., that it will encourage other nations to torture our soldiers in future conflicts, and even more importantly, it represents a huge slip down the slippery slope of deteriorating principle and behavior.

Concerning the first, you have been in consistent denial, stating over and over that the "techniques" we used to illicit information did not rise to the level of torture. The fact that I quoted passages from several sources which clearly demonstrated that our actions did indeed rise to level of torture, you generally ignored, or attempted to say that, in the case of the quotes I used from the Geneva Conventions, that they were inapplicable--that they did not cover "enemy combatants." My demonstration that most scholars agree that Geneva does in fact apply, and more specifically, that the provisions of Common Article III unambiguously apply--were shrugged off. The fact that our own Supreme Court ruled they apply, the fact that even George W. Bush belatedly agreed that they apply was never once acknowledged by you. Also unacknowledged was my attempt to personalize the "enhanced interrogation" practices we employed. I asked how you would feel if you, your wife, or one of your children had been swept up in the too wide dragnet of terrorist investigations and subjected to these "discomforts" as you once characterized them--discomforts that resulted in at least 100 deaths, I might add. There have, amazingly enough, been a few people who have put their bodies where there mouths were and allowed themselves to be subjected to these "discomforts." The result? As you would expect, in every instance, those who underwent the waterboarding technique have come away recognizing that the technique was indeed torturous—even though as it was applied to them, it was not under as dire conditions. Take for instance the blowhard, Mancow. He had been saying much the same things as you have, that it wasn't really torture, I mean, having some water poured on your face—how bad could that be? Well, he was challenged to submit to such treatment, and he readily agreed. He thought he would last a minute or so before he would give the signal to cease the experiment. He lasted less than 2 seconds, and came away from it sheepishly admitting that he was totally wrong, that waterboading, just one of a spectrum of techniques we employed which qualify as torture under US and international law, was definitely torture. Perhaps because of this and other examples, Hannity—another bloviating swill-meister—has not made good on his promise to subject himself to the treatment. So, how do you think you'd stand up to the WB? or to being thrown up against a stone wall, or doused with water and kept in a 50 degree cell for hours on end? or beaten until your legs were pulp? or forced into a coffin-like box with creepy-crawlies? or told that your wife and children would be raped? And how would a child of yours stand up to these things? And how would you feel about them being subjected to such treatment, especially if they died as a result? “Oh--It's tragic of course, but these things happen. The soldiers/CIA operatives who beat my child to death were only acting professionally, in accordance to the wishes of the president, to protect America from terrorism. I am certain my child was only too happy to sacrifice him(her)self to this vital cause. God Bless America and John Yoo.” Somehow, I don't think this is what you'd say, but somehow, it's perfectly okay for Americans to subject others to this treatment—others just as innocent of terrorism as is your children.

As to the second unadressed issue noted above, I have quoted several times from our own military who decry this crazed policy, both because of the increased danger it represents to our own military personnel vis-a-vis being subjected to torture in future conflicts, and because of what the removal of the here-to-fore strict prohibitions on torture would likely mean toward propelling many way down the slope of ever escalating abuse. To bolster the slippery-slope argument, I wrote at some length about 2 experiments—the Milgram “Obedience to Authority” experiment (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment, and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)—and how they demonstrated how precarious our hold is on civilization. Your response? We still await same.

Cheerio!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

AND--

Just received a note from Congessman Kucinch that I hadn't seen before which demonstrate the fact that there WERE those who knew Bush's case for war was completely illegitimate before the war commenced—-besides myself .

Seven years ago this week the House of Representatives debated the Iraq War Resolution which was presented by President Bush. I made the case for NOT going to war. I analyzed the Bush war resolution, paragraph by paragraph, and pointed out "Key Issues" which argued against Congress voting to go to war. I distributed the attached analysis, personally, to over 200 members of Congress from October 2, 2002 until October 10, 2002 when the vote occurred.

When you hear people say: "If only we had known then what we know now," remember, some did know of the false case for war against Iraq. And since so many know now that we should not have gone to war against Iraq, then why are we still there?

Please read this analysis and let me know what you think.

Thank you.


P.S. - The "Whereas" clauses were verbatim from the 2002 Bush Iraq War Resolution. The "Key Issue" represented my commentary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq
by Dennis J. Kucinich
October 2, 2002

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

KEY ISSUE: In the Persian Gulf War there was an international coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

KEY ISSUE: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

KEY ISSUE: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the US continues to thwart (the Administration's word) weapons inspections.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

KEY ISSUE: There is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A "continuing" threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

KEY ISSUE: This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force resolution enables the President to commit US troops to recover Kuwaiti property.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

KEY ISSUE: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

KEY ISSUE: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

KEY ISSUE: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the US to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

KEY ISSUE: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

KEY ISSUE: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions.

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force.

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

KEY ISSUE: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology of the international process, and contrasts the current march to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN resolutions.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

KEY ISSUE: This "Sense of Congress" resolution was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it endorse assassination as a policy.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

KEY ISSUE: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the United States the support of the world community, adversely affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the United States does not have the authority to unilaterally order military action to enforce UN Security Council resolutions.

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

KEY ISSUE: The Administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the events of 9/11.

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

KEY ISSUE: The Administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

KEY ISSUE: This resolution was specific to 9/11. It was limited to a response to 9/11.

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

KEY ISSUE: If by the "national security interests" of the United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the world.

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

KEY ISSUE: Congress can and should support this clause. However Section 3 (which follows) undermines the effectiveness of this section. Any peaceful settlement requires Iraq compliance. The totality of this resolution indicates the Administration will wage war against Iraq no matter what. This undermines negotiations.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1)defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2)enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

KEY ISSUE: This clause is substantially similar to the authorization that the President originally sought.

It gives authority to the President to act prior to and even without a UN resolution, and it authorizes the President to use US troops to enforce UN resolutions even without UN request for it. This is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which reserves the ability to authorize force for that purpose to the Security Council, alone.

Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace... and shall make recommendations to maintain or restore international peace and security." (Article 39). Only the Security Council can decide that military force would be necessary, "The Security Council may decide what measures... are to be employed to give effect to its decisions (Article 41) ... [and] it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." (Article 43). Furthermore, the resolution authorizes use of force illegally, since the UN Security Council has not requested it. According to the UN Charter, members of the UN, such as the US, are required to "make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces..." (Article 43, emphasis added). The UN Security Council has not called upon its members to use military force against Iraq at the current time.

Furthermore, changes to the language of the previous use-of-force resolution, drafted by the White House and objected to by many members of Congress, are cosmetic:

In section (1), the word "continuing" was added to "the threat posed by Iraq".

In section (2), the word "relevant" is added to "United Nations Security Council Resolutions" and the words "regarding "Iraq" were added to the end.

While these changes are represented as a compromise or a new material development, the effects of this resolution are largely the same as the previous White House proposal.

The UN resolutions, which could be cited by the President to justify sending US troops to Iraq, go far beyond addressing weapons of mass destruction. These could include, at the President's discretion, such "relevant" resolutions "regarding Iraq" including resolutions to enforce human rights and the recovery of Kuwaiti property.